The cyke has been invented

patent law are incredibly flawed, the whole system needs to be
completely overhauled. id gladly get rid of the whole thing.

patents are a pretty bad thing realy because they are designed to create
monopolies ( are there any good reasons to have monopolies?).

mr watt had the chance to patent mains electricity and charge a royalty
fee for evey WATT of electricity produced, he didnt thogh, because he
was a good person and not an evil greedy cash whore.

verry occasionaly sombody like mr dyson inventssomething clever and gets
rich, because of the patent laws. but then the rivals just develop
something similar that dosent quite infringe the patent.

if you invent something and want it to be free for all mankind all you
have to do is share it with people, when there is prior art in the
public domain you cant patent something.(many patents are granted
nonetheless but they are unenforcable and will usual be revoked if the
patent holder tries to sue anybody.)

if somebody out there designs some parts they could release them under
the creative commons licence:
http://creativecommons.org/

its not the same as a patent thogh.


making a clone of somebodies design is just rude, and i wouldnt expect
the world to treat me kindly if i set up a company that made exact
replicas of profiles designs.

but if i made an axle that was compatible with the profiles, but
stronger. i wouldnt expect any hassle.

however if profile does own a patent on their spline pattern then they
could sue me for ever penny i owned. just for making an axle that was
compatible with their cranks.


--
evilewan - death or glory

--
evilewan.

see the rec.sport.unicycling maintainance FAQ @
http://evilewan.unicyclist.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
evilewan's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1047
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/28679

patent law are incredibly flawed, the whole system needs to be
completely overhauled. id gladly get rid of the whole thing.

patents are a pretty bad thing realy because they are designed to create
monopolies ( are there any good reasons to have monopolies?).

mr watt had the chance to patent mains electricity and charge a royalty
fee for evey WATT of electricity produced, he didnt thogh, because he
was a good person and not an evil greedy cash whore.

verry occasionaly sombody like mr dyson inventssomething clever and gets
rich, because of the patent laws. but then the rivals just develop
something similar that dosent quite infringe the patent.

if you invent something and want it to be free for all mankind all you
have to do is share it with people, when there is prior art in the
public domain you cant patent something.(many patents are granted
nonetheless but they are unenforcable and will usual be revoked if the
patent holder tries to sue anybody.)

if somebody out there designs some parts they could release them under
the creative commons licence:
http://creativecommons.org/

its not the same as a patent thogh.


making a clone of somebodies design is just rude, and i wouldnt expect
the world to treat me kindly if i set up a company that made exact
replicas of profiles designs.

but if i made an axle that was compatible with the profiles, but
stronger. i wouldnt expect any hassle.

however if profile does own a patent on their spline pattern then they
could sue me for ever penny i owned. just for making an axle that was
compatible with their cranks.


--
evilewan - death or glory

--
evilewan.

see the rec.sport.unicycling maintainance FAQ @
http://evilewan.unicyclist.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
evilewan's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1047
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/28679

evilewan wrote:
*patent law are incredibly flawed, the whole system needs to be
completely overhauled. id gladly get rid of the whole thing.

patents are a pretty bad thing realy because they are designed to
create monopolies ( are there any good reasons to have monopolies?).*


Patent low is also a good (partial) protection AGAINST monopolies.
Without patent low there would be no financial reasons for small
startups or individual inventors to create anything; because, as soon as
it was proved marketable, the already existing monopolies would
immediately put the newcomer out of business with their copies.

Another example of where patent law benefits: if it weren't for patent
law our best painkillers might still be aspirin and morphine. It costs
_lots_ of money to develop new drugs, and without some protection, there
would be little to no financial incentive for new drug development.

I'm not saying that patent law or it's practice are anywhere near
perfect, but it is of substantial benefit. Ever been glad you had a
Cresent wrench handy? Vise Grip pliers? Ever use Velcro? These
patents have now expired, but without the patents the products might
never have been available at all - brand name or otherwise.

duaner.


--
duaner - -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
duaner's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4297
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/28679

evilewan wrote:
*patent law are incredibly flawed, the whole system needs to be
completely overhauled. id gladly get rid of the whole thing.

patents are a pretty bad thing realy because they are designed to
create monopolies ( are there any good reasons to have monopolies?).*


Patent low is also a good (partial) protection AGAINST monopolies.
Without patent low there would be no financial reasons for small
startups or individual inventors to create anything; because, as soon as
it was proved marketable, the already existing monopolies would
immediately put the newcomer out of business with their copies.

Another example of where patent law benefits: if it weren't for patent
law our best painkillers might still be aspirin and morphine. It costs
_lots_ of money to develop new drugs, and without some protection, there
would be little to no financial incentive for new drug development.

I'm not saying that patent law or it's practice are anywhere near
perfect, but it is of substantial benefit. Ever been glad you had a
Cresent wrench handy? Vise Grip pliers? Ever use Velcro? These
patents have now expired, but without the patents the products might
never have been available at all - brand name or otherwise.

duaner.


--
duaner - -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
duaner's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4297
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/28679

Let's see some more unicycling patents! Most of them have probably
expired long ago or were too trivial or had prior art. I can't imagine
many fundamental parts of a unicycle being patentable with the
expectation that such patents could be proved (or have been proved)
valid in court.

duaner wrote:

Patent law is also a good (partial) protection AGAINST monopolies.
Without patent low there would be no financial reasons for small
startups or individual inventors to create anything; because, as soon as
it was proved marketable, the already existing monopolies would
immediately put the newcomer out of business with their copies.

Monopolies acquire all encompassing patent portfolios and are the only
ones rich enough to pay lawyers to defend or defeat patents in the
courts.

The US patent system is out of control. Amazon was given a patent on
their single click checkout. Its amazing how many obvious patents are
awarded even though patents can't be given for anything that a
practitioner in the art could come up with in a reasonable amount of time
or if prior art exits! I complained to my Congressman, but he responded
that the US Patent Office is not doing anything wrong. That's not what
I wanted to hear from him.

Software patents shouldn't even be given out. Software has adequate
copyright protection.

Another example of where patent law benefits: if it weren't for patent
law our best pain killers might still be aspirin and morphine. It costs
_lots_ of money to develop new drugs, and without some protection, there
would be little to no financial incentive for new drug development.

Monopolies own almost all patents, so there is little incentive for
startups or small companies to invest in technologies that are taken
away or traded away from them by huge companies.

I'm not saying that patent law or it's practice are anywhere near
perfect, but it is of substantial benefit. Ever been glad you had a
Crescent wrench handy? Vise Grip pliers? Ever use Velcro? These
patents have now expired, but without the patents the products might
never have been available at all - brand name or otherwise.

To the contrary, these products were on the market before the US Patent
Office went crazy approving patents just to support itself.

Now, individual inventors almost always have to assign all patent rights
to the company they work for and the big companies acquire other
companies sometimes only for the patents they own. So, the largest
company in an industry ends up owning most of the patents and can really
choke of the competition and become a monopoly.

The only benefit of the US patent system is the fact that patents expire
in 17 years, far sooner than copyright's 75 years. Of course, even some
patent holders agreed that the 17 year limit which seemed to work well a
century ago, just doesn't make sense in today's fast pace of technology.
Many patent holders agreed that the patent expiration time is far too
long now and suggest expirations of 3-5 years so as not to unduly slow
down progress.

Sincerely,

Ken Fuchs

Let's see some more unicycling patents! Most of them have probably
expired long ago or were too trivial or had prior art. I can't imagine
many fundamental parts of a unicycle being patentable with the
expectation that such patents could be proved (or have been proved)
valid in court.

duaner wrote:

Patent law is also a good (partial) protection AGAINST monopolies.
Without patent low there would be no financial reasons for small
startups or individual inventors to create anything; because, as soon as
it was proved marketable, the already existing monopolies would
immediately put the newcomer out of business with their copies.

Monopolies acquire all encompassing patent portfolios and are the only
ones rich enough to pay lawyers to defend or defeat patents in the
courts.

The US patent system is out of control. Amazon was given a patent on
their single click checkout. Its amazing how many obvious patents are
awarded even though patents can't be given for anything that a
practitioner in the art could come up with in a reasonable amount of time
or if prior art exits! I complained to my Congressman, but he responded
that the US Patent Office is not doing anything wrong. That's not what
I wanted to hear from him.

Software patents shouldn't even be given out. Software has adequate
copyright protection.

Another example of where patent law benefits: if it weren't for patent
law our best pain killers might still be aspirin and morphine. It costs
_lots_ of money to develop new drugs, and without some protection, there
would be little to no financial incentive for new drug development.

Monopolies own almost all patents, so there is little incentive for
startups or small companies to invest in technologies that are taken
away or traded away from them by huge companies.

I'm not saying that patent law or it's practice are anywhere near
perfect, but it is of substantial benefit. Ever been glad you had a
Crescent wrench handy? Vise Grip pliers? Ever use Velcro? These
patents have now expired, but without the patents the products might
never have been available at all - brand name or otherwise.

To the contrary, these products were on the market before the US Patent
Office went crazy approving patents just to support itself.

Now, individual inventors almost always have to assign all patent rights
to the company they work for and the big companies acquire other
companies sometimes only for the patents they own. So, the largest
company in an industry ends up owning most of the patents and can really
choke of the competition and become a monopoly.

The only benefit of the US patent system is the fact that patents expire
in 17 years, far sooner than copyright's 75 years. Of course, even some
patent holders agreed that the 17 year limit which seemed to work well a
century ago, just doesn't make sense in today's fast pace of technology.
Many patent holders agreed that the patent expiration time is far too
long now and suggest expirations of 3-5 years so as not to unduly slow
down progress.

Sincerely,

Ken Fuchs

duaner wrote:
*

Patent low is also a good (partial) protection AGAINST monopolies.
Without patent low there would be no financial reasons for small
startups or individual inventors to create anything; because, as soon
as it was proved marketable, the already existing monopolies would
immediately put the newcomer out of business with their copies.

Another example of where patent law benefits: if it weren't for patent
law our best painkillers might still be aspirin and morphine. It costs
_lots_ of money to develop new drugs, and without some protection,
there would be little to no financial incentive for new drug
development.

I'm not saying that patent law or it's practice are anywhere near
perfect, but it is of substantial benefit. Ever been glad you had a
Cresent wrench handy? Vise Grip pliers? Ever use Velcro? These
patents have now expired, but without the patents the products might
never have been available at all - brand name or otherwise.

.duaner. *


you explanation of patent law pretty much sums up the reasons we have
patent law. if it worked like you said then that'd be fine.

but unfortunatley it actualy does the complete oposite of what its
intended to do.

take pharmacuticals for example,

most of (like 95% or something) of the pharmacutical market is served by
only two or three companies, glaxo-welcome, bayer, and unilever(correct
me if i'm wrong, i could be.)
they own basicly all the patents to everything pharmacutical, and
licence those patents to each other.

now there was a big fuss a few years ago when an indian company started
producing cancer treatment drugs without a licence agreement from the
big boys.
needles to say they were filling a gap in the market selling the drugs
at lower prices, because the glaxo-welcome et all, were charging
extortionatly high prices for the drugs.

there was a big hoo haa, and the big boys took the indian company to
court. however it looked like the indian company was going to win on a
human rights issue, so instead of letting the case set a global
precident the big companies setled out of court.

"so what" you may say. but by doing so the pharmacutical companies kept
their power to sell these druggs at prices way beyond their actual
value.

and the real icing on the cake is that cancer druggs research actualy
get funded by the government and charities.

a good example of pharmacuticl research that dosent rely on patent law
is the human genome project, one of the biggest research projects ever
undertaken.

true, the intent behind patent law is good, its just a shame it dosent
actualy do what it says on the tin.

just to keep this on topic, if sombody had a patent on say "method for
atatching breaks to a unicycle frame"
they'd be free to charge royalties on every unicycle frame with break
mounts ever made, if they wanted they could set those royalties at $100
per frame.
that would suck. and patents have been awarded for much more trivial
things

i'd say that the only reason the world actualy puts up with it is that
patens expire eventualy.


--
evilewan - death or glory

--
evilewan.

see the rec.sport.unicycling maintainance FAQ @
http://evilewan.unicyclist.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
evilewan's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1047
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/28679

duaner wrote:
*

Patent low is also a good (partial) protection AGAINST monopolies.
Without patent low there would be no financial reasons for small
startups or individual inventors to create anything; because, as soon
as it was proved marketable, the already existing monopolies would
immediately put the newcomer out of business with their copies.

Another example of where patent law benefits: if it weren't for patent
law our best painkillers might still be aspirin and morphine. It costs
_lots_ of money to develop new drugs, and without some protection,
there would be little to no financial incentive for new drug
development.

I'm not saying that patent law or it's practice are anywhere near
perfect, but it is of substantial benefit. Ever been glad you had a
Cresent wrench handy? Vise Grip pliers? Ever use Velcro? These
patents have now expired, but without the patents the products might
never have been available at all - brand name or otherwise.

.duaner. *


you explanation of patent law pretty much sums up the reasons we have
patent law. if it worked like you said then that'd be fine.

but unfortunatley it actualy does the complete oposite of what its
intended to do.

take pharmacuticals for example,

most of (like 95% or something) of the pharmacutical market is served by
only two or three companies, glaxo-welcome, bayer, and unilever(correct
me if i'm wrong, i could be.)
they own basicly all the patents to everything pharmacutical, and
licence those patents to each other.

now there was a big fuss a few years ago when an indian company started
producing cancer treatment drugs without a licence agreement from the
big boys.
needles to say they were filling a gap in the market selling the drugs
at lower prices, because the glaxo-welcome et all, were charging
extortionatly high prices for the drugs.

there was a big hoo haa, and the big boys took the indian company to
court. however it looked like the indian company was going to win on a
human rights issue, so instead of letting the case set a global
precident the big companies setled out of court.

"so what" you may say. but by doing so the pharmacutical companies kept
their power to sell these druggs at prices way beyond their actual
value.

and the real icing on the cake is that cancer druggs research actualy
get funded by the government and charities.

a good example of pharmacuticl research that dosent rely on patent law
is the human genome project, one of the biggest research projects ever
undertaken.

true, the intent behind patent law is good, its just a shame it dosent
actualy do what it says on the tin.

just to keep this on topic, if sombody had a patent on say "method for
atatching breaks to a unicycle frame"
they'd be free to charge royalties on every unicycle frame with break
mounts ever made, if they wanted they could set those royalties at $100
per frame.
that would suck. and patents have been awarded for much more trivial
things

i'd say that the only reason the world actualy puts up with it is that
patens expire eventualy.


--
evilewan - death or glory

--
evilewan.

see the rec.sport.unicycling maintainance FAQ @
http://evilewan.unicyclist.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
evilewan's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/1047
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/28679

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:30:21 -0600, evilewan
wrote:

the pharmacutical companies kept
their power to sell these [cancer] druggs at prices way
beyond their actual value.

'Value' should read 'cost'. Small point but it hit me.

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
--
Grizzly bear droppings have bells in them and smell like pepper spray. - UniBrier

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 19:30:21 -0600, evilewan
wrote:

the pharmacutical companies kept
their power to sell these [cancer] druggs at prices way
beyond their actual value.

'Value' should read 'cost'. Small point but it hit me.

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
--
Grizzly bear droppings have bells in them and smell like pepper spray. - UniBrier